Allowed

Prakash Shivaji Jadhav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC1 Aug 2014ABA/227/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for anticipatory bail filed by two accused owners of a drug firm facing charges under IPC and Drugs and Cosmetics Act for selling spurious medicine. The High Court granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions including reporting police weekly and refraining from selling drugs.

What did the court decide?

Granted pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing P.R. Bond, one or two sureties, appearing every Tuesday, and refraining from selling spurious drugs.

Prakash Shivaji Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.227.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.227 OF 2014

¶5

Prakash Shivaji Jadhav 2. Sachin Purshottam Baldwa ... Applicants

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Sr.Adv. With S.P. Borade for the Applicants Ms.A.A. Mane, APP, for Respondent – State Mr.M.B. Mane, API, Kalachowki police station, present

¶9

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶10

DATE: AUGUST 1, 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

This is an application for anticipatory bail as the applicants/accused

¶13

are facing charges under sections 273, 274, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 65(5)(3), 65(6) and 18(C) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The FIR is registered at C.R. No.16 of 2014 with Kalachowki police station, Mumbai. The applicant/accused is the owner and the applicant No.2 is the Manager of the Firm, namely, J.B. Pharma, which firm is a wholesale dealer of one medicine Duphaston tablets, batch No.BER 4023 and expiry dated 2/2016. The said stock was sold to Chandan Distributors, Baramati. However, the drug was found spurious and therefore, in the investigation it was found that Chandan Distributors have purchased the said stock from J.B. Pharma and some strips of the

¶14

1 / 3

¶15

aba.227.2014.doc

¶16

tablets were also sold to one M/s.Megha Enterprises. Hence, the complaint.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the applicants/accused submitted that the applicant/accused No.2, who is working as a Manager in the J.B. Pharma, was taken to Agra as one Dinesh Gupta has supplied these medicines to J.B. Pharma. He further submitted that the applicants/accused No.1 is the owner and the orders were given and the entire purchase was done by accused No.2, the Manager of J.B. Pharma from Agra. He further submitted that the applicant No.2 has taken the police to Agra, however, though his residence and the shop alongwith his brother were found, Dinesh was not found. He further submitted that the applicants/accused have cooperated with the police and have shown the place from where they have received the drug. The learned Counsel submitted that the applicants/accused are innocent and be granted anticipatory bail.

¶18

The learned Prosecutor produced a report of the Investigating Officer and especially the report of the investigation at Delhi and Agra, which is done pursuant to the information given by the applicant/accused No.2.

¶19

Perused the report of the Senior P.I., Kalachowki police station,

¶20

2 / 3

¶21

aba.227.2014.doc

¶22

Mumbai. Considering the fact that Dinesh Gupta was not found and in view of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, the applicants are granted pre-arrest bail subject to following terms:

¶23

i) In the event of arrest, the applicants be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each, with one or two sureties in the like amount; ii) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence;

¶24

iii) The applicants/accused shall not sell the medicine and shall not indulge in any kind of such offences of selling spurious drugs;

¶25

iii) The applicants shall cooperate with the investigating officer and shall report to the concerned police station every Tuesday between 6pm to 7pm, till the filing of chargesheet.

¶26

Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of on the above terms.

¶27

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶28

3 / 3

Prakash Shivaji Jadhav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Shivaji Jadhav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrikrishna Khandelwal Vs M/S. S.P. Builders and Ors.

Lallasingh Pawansingh @ Karansingh S/O Gungasingh @ Rameshsingh Tak @ Sardar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhiraj Jagdish Khairmode and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd Azim Raine Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Uttamrao Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sujata Shambaji Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.